Trump's Personal Lawyer And Campaign Manager Both Going To Prison

[EricHiggin]

Machiavellian said:

EricHiggin said:

Your proof was theories and beliefs. Again, that's not worthy evidence and I don't consider it proof by any means. Are you trying to say if I only used one link then it would have been more acceptable since we both would have offered one useless piece of evidence? I already mentioned Muellers team has already lost individuals due to leaks, just not specific to the Cohen and Manafort case, but that apparently doesn't hold any influence over whether the leaks came from Muellers team apparently, since it's not directly pertaining to this case. You keep pointing to his team and exclusive information, but just because the information wasn't exclusive to just them, that means to you that his team couldn't have leaked it? Your evidence was theories and beliefs. You already accused me prior to believing in theories which apparently doesn't count, so why should I take your claim and evidence anymore seriously than my own? Why am I still at it, when you've already explained your set on the fact that it's not a draw? Strength in numbers?

At Bold:  Exactly who on Mueller team did he lose to leaks.  If you are talking about Strzok and Page then you really need to read up on their stories because it wasn't leaks from them that they were removed from the team.  I hope you have something better than that if not then I have to determine that you have absolutely no clue what a leak is, and you are just arguing a point in ignorance.

The point about exclusive information is that you can directly point it to someone under his control, if not then you are just throwing stuff in the wind to see if it hits anything.  The point is that you have absolutely nothing.  You do not have a name, event or even a rumor that someone from Mueller team has leaked any information.  You provided garbage links and still trying to defend them as if they showed anything.  You keep saying my belief is a theory but not only could you not find any hard evidence to dispute it, you could not even find any soft evidence to dispute it.  Its not a draw because you provided absolutely nothing to prove your point.  Your point seems to be there are leaks and by golly there is a chance one of them could have come from Mueller's team.   If this is what you consider a draw then we do not need to discuss this issue anymore.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/12/new-strzok-page-texts-reveal-others-were-leaking-like-mad-in-lead-up-to-trump-russia-probe.html

You took that the wrong way. I didn't mean Strzok and Page were leaking themselves, which isn't really clear either, I meant the leaks that led to their wrongdoings coming to light. When Mueller allows people like this to work on his team until someone else finds out what they've done and then allows the system to take care of it, you can't help but wonder when someone like Manafort would accuse Muellers team of leaking and wants to have witnesses testify, only to have Muellers team deny it and try to push it back at the very least, if not make it go away entirely, if there's something else going on whether Mueller knows it or not.

You say there aren't even rumors that his team leaked any information yet Manafort has made an allegation about just that, which is in one of my links. You can say the judge pointed out that Manafort's claim of improper conduct wasn't enough to move forward for a hearing, yet Ford has recently accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault after 30 years, with practically no evidence at all and is having a hearing set up for her asap. Being sure that Kavanaugh is innocent makes sense, but so would making sure Muellers team is operating as intended, considering the teams recent past, and that they are investigating the Russia case which seems to be aimed at the President. Neither should be given a pass.

I did not say your belief is a theory, I said the evidence you provided in the link to back up your claim, was based on beliefs and theories. That isn't worthy evidence because beliefs and theories are based on what are assumed to be the facts, not all the known indisputable hard evidence itself. If your claim isn't completely undeniable, then there is no need for the opposition to have evidence to dispute it. If and or when Ford testifies, if she doesn't have substantial evidence, then all Kavanaugh has to do is say he didn't do it and he's off the hook. If he provides any evidence at all it will leave him looking quite innocent, unless he admits he did it or anything close to that, then he's in trouble. If she has solid factual evidence, then Kavanaugh will have to be able to offer the same or more and as factually convincing, otherwise he will look quite guilty. I don't see our claims being any different.